TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (3) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f original copy of the invoices. Further, requisite particulars were not entered into the invoices. In some cases the dealer had not got himself registered with the Department. 2.The matter was heard on 13-3-2001 when Shri Sandeep Singh, Advocate, appearing for M/s. Shivalik submitted that the requisite particulars that were missing from the invoices at the time of taking the credit, were given subsequently. The dealer had also got himself registered with the Department subsequently. As regards availing of credit on original copy of the invoices, it was his submission that the appellants had in their possession duplicate copies of the invoices also. He prayed that the discrepancies were of technical nature and that the substantive benefi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder which credit could be allowed by the proper officer on a copy of the invoice other than the duplicate copy were not met by the appellants. The argument that the appellants were in possession of duplicate copies also is of no avail if the credit had not been taken on their strength. Such an argument, in fact, shows conscious disregard of the provisions of the law. If such a plea is allowed, then it will lead to malpractices as when the discrepancies come to light, the assessee could take conveniently such a plea. 4.The Modvat credit of Rs. 2,95,642.28 has been denied in some cases where the invoices did not contain all the particulars therein. Such important particulars as the name and address of the manufacturers, serial No. and dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the conjoint reading of both these rules, it is quite evident that no one can deal with the excisable goods in any capacity such as trader, dealer, commission agent, broker without getting himself registered under the Central Excises Act. The invoice or invoices under Rule 57G, therefore, can be issued only by a registered dealer after the issuance of Notification No. 32/94 and only then the Modvat credit can be claimed on the strength of the same in respect of the goods mentioned, by the end user and not otherwise. No10. doubt, the Revenue Department, after issuance of the Notification No. 32/94-C.E., dated 4th July, 1994 and insertion of Section 57GG on its basis in the statute issued instruction bearing No. 76/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the commercial market and to avoid misuse of the Modvat scheme not only by them but by the persons deriving title to the goods through them and further to bring transparency in the transactions. These rules being of substantive character and built in with certain objectives cannot, therefore, be called merely a procedural, the deviation of which can be permitted to be made by the dealer of the excisable goods with immunity. The very object of issuance of Notification No. 32/94 referred to above and insertion of Rules 57GG and 174 requiring the registration of the dealer dealing with the excisable goods, would stand defeated and nullified if these are taken to be only procedural and not mandatory/imperative in character and enforcement." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... invoice issued under Rule 52A. The endorsement of the invoice had not at all be provided in this Rule. Only the issuance of invoice or invoices had been made permissible as is further evident from the wording of Rule 57GG and even statutory obligation has been imposed on the person issuing the invoice or invoices to maintain stock account in form RG 23D and to make entry in that register at the end of the day on receipt of inputs of excisable goods. It is not only a procedural technical condition so as to hold that its violation by making endorsement on the invoice by not maintaining the relevant record as required under Rule 57G or Rule 57GG referred to above, is condonable under the law. A distinction has to be made between a procedural ....